-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder characterised by both motor and non-motor problems. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, licensed for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Parkinson's disease (PD) is a progressive disorder characterised by both motor and non-motor problems. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, licensed for treatment of type 2 diabetes, work by stimulating GLP-1 receptors in the pancreas, which triggers the release of insulin. GLP-1 receptors have been found in the brain. Insulin signalling in the brain plays a key role in neuronal metabolism and repair and in synaptic efficacy, but insulin signalling is desensitised in the brain of people with PD. Researchers are exploring the neuroprotective effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in neurodegenerative disorders such as PD.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GLP-1 receptor agonists for Parkinson's disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; and Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries, and we handsearched conference abstracts. The most recent search was run on 25 June 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with PD that compared GLP-1 receptor agonists with conventional PD treatment, placebo, or no treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE. We resolved discrepancies between the two data extractors by consultation with a third review author.
MAIN RESULTS
Through our searches, we retrieved 99 unique records, of which two met our inclusion criteria. One double-blind study of exenatide versus placebo randomised 62 participants, who self-administered exenatide or placebo for 48 weeks and were followed up at 60 weeks after a 12-week washout. One single-blind study of exenatide versus no additional treatment randomised 45 participants; participants in the intervention group self-administered exenatide for 12 months, and all participants were followed up at 14 months and 24 months following absence of exenatide for 2 months and 12 months, respectively. These trials had low risk of bias, except risk of performance bias was high for Aviles-Olmos 2013. Exenatide versus placebo Primary outcomes We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in the off-medication state (mean difference (MD) -3.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.11 to -0.09). The difference in scores was slightly greater when scores were adjusted for baseline severity of the condition (as reported by study authors) (MD -3.5, 95% CI -6.7 to -0.3), exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). We found low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as assessed by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ)-39 Summary Index (SI) (MD -1.80, 95% CI -6.95 to 3.35), the EuroQol scale measuring health status in five dimensions (EQ5D) (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.16), or the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) (MD 5.00, 95% CI -3.42 to 13.42). Eight serious adverse events (SAEs) were recorded, but all were considered unrelated to the intervention. Low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide has little or no effect on weight loss (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.76). Exenatide versus no treatment Primary outcomes at 14 months We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide improves motor impairment as assessed by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD -4.50, 95% CI -8.64 to -0.36), exceeding the MCID. We are uncertain whether exenatide improves HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (MD 3.50, 95% CI -2.75 to 9.75; very low-quality evidence). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide has little or no effect on the number of SAEs (RR 1.60, 95% 0.40 to 6.32). We found very low-certainty evidence suggesting that exenatide may lead to weight loss (MD -2.40 kg, 95% CI -4.56 to -0.24). Primary outcomes at 24 months We found evidence as reported by study authors to suggest that exenatide improves motor impairment as measured by MDS-UPDRS Part III off medication (MD 5.6 points, 95% CI 2.2 to 9.0). Exenatide may not improve HRQoL as assessed by the PDQ-39 SI (P = 0.682) and may not result in weight loss (MD 0.1 kg, 95% CI 3.0 to 2.8).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- or very low-certainty evidence suggests that exenatide may improve motor impairment for people with PD. The difference in motor impairment observed between groups may persist for some time following cessation of exenatide. This raises the possibility that exenatide may have a disease-modifying effect. SAEs were unlikely to be related to treatment. The effectiveness of exenatide for improving HRQoL, non-motor outcomes, ADLs, and psychological outcomes is unclear. Ongoing studies are assessing other GLP-1 receptor agonists.
Topics: Bias; Double-Blind Method; Exenatide; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Parkinson Disease; Placebos; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Administration; Single-Blind Method
PubMed: 32700772
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012990.pub2 -
Nutricion Hospitalaria Dec 2021Objective: to perform a systematic literature review to examine the effects of high-dose, B-complex multivitamin/mineral supplementation on physical, mental, and energy...
Objective: to perform a systematic literature review to examine the effects of high-dose, B-complex multivitamin/mineral supplementation on physical, mental, and energy outcomes in healthy and 'at-risk' (suboptimal nutritional status/subclinical symptoms at baseline) adult populations. Methods: PubMed was searched for relevant randomized controlled trials until January 2020. Results: overall, 136 publications were identified. In the seven randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies considered eligible for inclusion, supplementation in healthy populations predominantly showed improvements in perceived stress, physical stamina, concentration, and general mental health, and significant reductions in anxiety and improvements in self-reported vigour. However, not all of these outcomes were significant, and statistical correction for multiple outcomes was not commonly employed. Studies investigating brain mapping following supplementation indicated increased functional activity in brain regions related to processing of attention, executive control, and working memory during cognitive tasks. Conclusions: while there is certainly a need for further studies on the neurocognitive and physical benefits of micronutrient supplementation, this review provides generally supportive evidence for the benefits of a high-dose, B-complex multivitamin/mineral supplement in healthy and at-risk populations in terms of physical, mental, and energy outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Dietary Supplements; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 34530623
DOI: 10.20960/nh.03631 -
European Heart Journal Jan 2018Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Recent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.
METHODS AND RESULTS
Individual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis.
CONCLUSION
Beta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Aged; Atrial Fibrillation; Double-Blind Method; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 29040525
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx564 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2011Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection in infants, occurring in a seasonal pattern, with highest incidence in the winter in temperate climates and in the rainy season in warmer countries. Bronchiolitis is a common reason for attendance at and admission to hospital.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of prophylactic interventions for bronchiolitis in high-risk children? What are the effects of measures to prevent transmission of bronchiolitis in hospital? What are the effects of treatments for children with bronchiolitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 59 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, bronchodilators (oral, inhaled salbutamol, inhaled adrenaline [epinephrine], hypertonic saline), chest physiotherapy, continuous positive airway pressure, corticosteroids, fluid management, heliox, montelukast, nasal decongestants, nursing interventions (cohort segregation, hand washing, gowns, masks, gloves, and goggles), oxygen, respiratory syncytial virus immunoglobulins, pooled immunoglobulins, or palivizumab (monoclonal antibody), ribavirin, or surfactants.
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Inhalation; Albuterol; Bronchiolitis; Bronchodilator Agents; Double-Blind Method; Epinephrine; Humans; Infant
PubMed: 21486501
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2010Evidence for the efficacy of treatments for autism has improved in recent years. In this systematic review the evidence for both drug and non-drug treatments is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Evidence for the efficacy of treatments for autism has improved in recent years. In this systematic review the evidence for both drug and non-drug treatments is appraised and clinical guidance is provided for their use.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of early intensive multidisciplinary intervention programmes in children with autism? What are the effects of dietary interventions in children with autism? What are the effects of drug treatments in children with autism? What are the effects of non-drug treatments in children with autism? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 30 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: applied behavioural analysis; auditory integration training; Autism Preschool Programme; casein-free diet; chelation; Child's Talk programme; cognitive behavioural therapy; digestive enzymes; EarlyBird programme; facilitated communication; Floortime therapy; gluten-free diet; immunoglobulins; melatonin; memantine; methylphenidate; More Than Words programme; music therapy; olanzapine; omega-3 fish oil; picture exchange communication system; Portage scheme; probiotics; relationship development interventions; risperidone; secretin; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); sensory integration training; social stories; social skills training; Son-Rise programme; TEACCH; vitamin A; vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) plus magnesium; and vitamin C.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Autistic Disorder; Caseins; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Language Disorders; Magnesium; Memantine; Secretin
PubMed: 21729335
DOI: No ID Found -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2023We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature.
BACKGROUND
We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.
METHODS
MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan.
CONCLUSION
Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself. CRD42022308224.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Migraine Disorders; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36786357
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231151419 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Menopause is a physiological event. In the UK, the median age for onset of menopausal symptoms is 45.5 to 47.5 years. Although endocrine changes are permanent,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Menopause is a physiological event. In the UK, the median age for onset of menopausal symptoms is 45.5 to 47.5 years. Although endocrine changes are permanent, menopausal symptoms such as hot flushes, which are experienced by about 70% of women, usually resolve with time, although they can persist for decades in some women.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of medical treatments for menopausal symptoms? What are the effects of non-prescribed treatments for menopausal symptoms? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 79 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: agnus castus, antidepressants, black cohosh, clonidine, oestrogens, phyto-oestrogens, progestogens, testosterone, and tibolone.
Topics: Cimicifuga; Double-Blind Method; Hot Flashes; Humans; Menopause; Nonprescription Drugs; Postmenopause
PubMed: 21696644
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2011Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute sinusitis is defined pathologically, by transient inflammation of the mucosal lining of the paranasal sinuses lasting less than 4 weeks. Clinically, it is characterised by nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea, facial pain, hyposmia, sneezing, and, if more severe, additional malaise and fever. It affects 1% to 5% of the adult population each year in Europe.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with clinically diagnosed acute sinusitis, and in people with radiologically or bacteriologically confirmed acute sinusitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics (amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanic acid [co-amoxiclav], doxycycline, cephalosporins, macrolides; different doses, long-course regimens), antihistamines, decongestants (xylometazoline, phenylephrine, pseudoephedrine), saline nasal washes, steam inhalation, and topical corticosteroids (intranasal).
Topics: Acute Disease; Administration, Oral; Amoxicillin; Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate Combination; Double-Blind Method; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Macrolides; Sinusitis
PubMed: 22189346
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Erectile dysfunction may affect 30% to 50% of men aged 40 to 70 years, with age, smoking, and obesity being the main risk factors, although 20% of cases have... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Erectile dysfunction may affect 30% to 50% of men aged 40 to 70 years, with age, smoking, and obesity being the main risk factors, although 20% of cases have psychological causes.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in men with erectile dysfunction of any cause? What are the effects of phosphodiesterase inhibitors on erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes, with cardiovascular disease, with spinal cord injury, and with prostate cancer or undergoing prostatectomy? What are the effects of drug treatments other than phosphodiesterase inhibitors in men with erectile dysfunction of any cause? What are the effects of devices, psychological/behavioural treatments, and alternative treatments in men with erectile dysfunction of any cause? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 81 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alprostadil (intracavernosal, intraurethral, topical), cognitive behavioural therapy, ginseng, papaverine, papaverine plus phentolamine (bimix), papaverine plus phentolamine plus alprostadil (trimix), penile prostheses, phosphodiesterase inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil), psychosexual counselling, vacuum devices, and yohimbine.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors; Prostatectomy; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil
PubMed: 21711956
DOI: No ID Found -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Nocturnal enuresis affects 15% to 20% of 5-year-old children, 5% of 10-year-old children, and 1% to 2% of people aged 15 years and over. Without treatment, 15% of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Nocturnal enuresis affects 15% to 20% of 5-year-old children, 5% of 10-year-old children, and 1% to 2% of people aged 15 years and over. Without treatment, 15% of affected children will become dry each year. Nocturnal enuresis is not diagnosed in children younger than 5 years, and treatment may be inappropriate for children younger than 7 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of interventions for relief of symptoms? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 19 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, anticholinergics (oxybutynin, tolterodine, hyoscyamine), desmopressin, dry bed training, enuresis alarm, hypnotherapy, standard home alarm clock, and tricyclics (imipramine, desipramine).
Topics: Antidiuretic Agents; Behavior Therapy; Double-Blind Method; Emotions; Humans; Hypnosis; Nocturnal Enuresis; Prospective Studies; United States Food and Drug Administration
PubMed: 21477399
DOI: No ID Found